The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post Reply
User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: The problem of the Self

Post by GrahamH » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:15 am

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote: Where is the problem? Location patterns and object patterns are learned by the brain. Relational patterns between object patterns and location patterns are learned by the brain.

Please spell out your objection.
The brain only has access to its own internal states. My objection is that you are trying to explain the concept of space from patterns discerned amidst objects and relative locations of these objects, thus you are trying to explain 'space' in terms of its relationship with external entities. Clearly, you are transcending the reality of the brain to do this. That is, you are using external relationships between objects to explain how the brain discerns of 'space'.
But what you have to do, is explain how the brain discerns 'space' from the patterns inherent within its own internal states and [possibly] the relative locations, within the brain, of these patterns. That's all the brain has to go on, so that's all your model can do too, in attempting to explain how the brain discerns of space.
You are mistaken. The brain has ready access to the information needed to identify locations. The brain moves the body and the body send back sense data. The brain probes the space around it by pointing the eyes around the space and responding to the patterns that result. Motions of eyes and body are patterns that can be learned and repeated.
jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:Remember, my claim is that the fundamental problem with models such as yours, is that they depend upon a priori knowledge of the world in order to interact with it. But brains cannot be endowed with a priori knowledge about the world... and the brain would have to assume the existence of said world, prior to assigning external meaning to its own internal states.
Nonsense James. No assumption is required, it is is sufficient to live in the pattern of sense stimuli from the world, routed through circuits evolved to learn those patterns. The sensory feedback system guides the learning. That is why we are born not knowing and knowledge grows in us. Our brains don't start as a blank slate, evolution has shaped them to be able to learn the world (things like - spotting faces-patterns)
The issue is not one of 'learning' or 'processing' or 'computing'. I'm agreed that the brain can recognise 'patterns' or 'order'. The issue is one of what is available to be processed. And in your model, all that is available to be processed, are the brain's own internal states. The brain can only relate NNs to one another. Therefore, any 'conclusions' that the brain makes, could only refer to itself!
Your objection is invalid. I would be interested to hear from anyone who sees merit in it. The brain is not a brain in a vat, it is connected with the world around it.
As with many forms of information gathering a coordinator can send out agents, or probes, or read reports from the world to acquire data. The brain controls the body and the body reports about the world. There is a rich flow of information in that two way connection.
jamest wrote:This is a big problem. The brain cannot relate its own internal states to the world unless it knows that its internal states are representative of external phenomena. A simple matter of logic. No matter how complex the brain becomes, it can only ever process its own internal states. And to process them in a way that relates its internal states to external phenomena necessarily requires a priori knowledge of the world's existence. Without such knowledge, the brain is forever limited to processing and learning about itself alone!
The brain doesn't need to know about its internal states for those states to interact with the world. You know nothing of what goes on in your visual cortex as you read these words. You know nothing of what this or that cluster of neurons means, but it allows you to see. You could have your VC excised to try to prove that 'seeing' is not a brain function.

I think you are still struggling with the concept that NNs are not just inert abstract symbols, the actively recognise patterns of 'objects' from sensory data. There are no images in the brain (and no cakes). There are NNs that recognise visual patterns (and other patterns). There is no inner screen, no theatre and no homunculus.
jamest wrote:This problem can actually be associated to what Kant said about not being able to transcend the phenomenal world, except that in this case, I am saying that the brain cannot transcend itself. Yet, when the brain evaluates its own internal states to be representative of a world external to itself, it does transcend itself. And how, other than with a priori knowledge of that world?
The brain does not transcend the phenomenal world, it is very much rooted in it. The phenomena leave marks on the brain. Your mother's face shoots photons into you that etch a pattern in your brain by initiating a causal chain of events that brains have evolved to implement.
jamest wrote:As I keep saying to you, it's a logical problem demanding a logical solution.
You are being illogical in your insistence that the world does not affect brains. It demonstrably does.
jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote: Do you understand how neural networks function as object classifiers/recognisers? Do you comprehend that this is not a symbol manipulation task?
You're still not addressing the logical problem. You're just telling me that there are NNs that correlate with external entities. Actually, to be exact, you can only say that there are NNs that correlate with experienced entities - because, of course, we cannot even know if the external world exists. Therefore, to be sure, any confirmed correlations must be about and with the internally conceived world.
Perhaps your difficulty here is that you are accustomed to thinking about consciousness as something divorced from what it is conscious of. You go so far as to deny the world we are conscious of. Are you trying to make us adopt your quirky ideas of C?
What I'm trying to do, is show you why materialistic brain models of human behaviour cannot work unless the brain has a priori knowledge of a realm beyond itself. That is, I'm alerting you to a massively significant problem of logic that renders all such models as ineffective.
Denying the world is not countering our model.
I am not denying the world. I'm denying that the brain could know about it. I'm denying that the brain can effectively interact with the world whilst knowing zilch about that world.
Deny, deny, deny. :nono:
Since you have no substantive objections, and seem, unable to grasp the simple and demonstrable fact that the phenomenal world reaches into the brain, perhaps we are done.

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The problem of the Self

Post by jamest » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:25 pm

GrahamH wrote:You are mistaken. The brain has ready access to the information needed to identify locations. The brain moves the body and the body send back sense data. The brain probes the space around it by pointing the eyes around the space and responding to the patterns that result. Motions of eyes and body are patterns that can be learned and repeated.
What you are doing here is taking evidence from experience to explain what the real brain can do. That the [experienced] brain has correlates with the [experienced] eyes and body, is no more in doubt than Tom having correlations with Jerry's behaviour. But your model must transcend and ignore experience. You cannot use empirical evidence to make a metaphysical case for the reality of brains interacting with the reality of a world.

Somewhere along the line, you forgot that this is essentially a metaphysical discussion. One that aims to rebuke the notion of an immaterial observer by coming up with a logically coherent materialistic model that is not grounded upon empirical observations.

You cannot prove that the brain moves real eyes and a real body in relation to the real world, using experience. You need to cut that out, right now.

It seems to me as though you do not understand the philosophical restraints imposed upon you and your model. Your responses are rife with assertions and completely avoid addressing any problems that I present for your consideration. Here, for example, your response to my explanation was "You are wrong", followed by the use of empirical evidence to show why I am wrong. :fp:

And yes, you are right, this conversation does appear to be a waste of my time.

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: The problem of the Self

Post by GrahamH » Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:05 pm

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:You are mistaken. The brain has ready access to the information needed to identify locations. The brain moves the body and the body send back sense data. The brain probes the space around it by pointing the eyes around the space and responding to the patterns that result. Motions of eyes and body are patterns that can be learned and repeated.
What you are doing here is taking evidence from experience to explain what the real brain can do. That the [experienced] brain has correlates with the [experienced] eyes and body, is no more in doubt than Tom having correlations with Jerry's behaviour. But your model must transcend and ignore experience. You cannot use empirical evidence to make a metaphysical case for the reality of brains interacting with the reality of a world.

Somewhere along the line, you forgot that this is essentially a metaphysical discussion. One that aims to rebuke the notion of an immaterial observer by coming up with a logically coherent materialistic model that is not grounded upon empirical observations.

You cannot prove that the brain moves real eyes and a real body in relation to the real world, using experience. You need to cut that out, right now.

It seems to me as though you do not understand the philosophical restraints imposed upon you and your model. Your responses are rife with assertions and completely avoid addressing any problems that I present for your consideration. Here, for example, your response to my explanation was "You are wrong", followed by the use of empirical evidence to show why I am wrong. :fp:

And yes, you are right, this conversation does appear to be a waste of my time.
Ha! So that's what you are reduced to - claiming that a materialist model cannot refer to empirical data because it doesn't fit your model.
:nono: You lose :mod:

So we used empirical evidence to show that you are wrong, did we? How unfair of us! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

P.S. You are the one making the metaphysical claim - that beyond the material world that we can all observe there must be something immaterial. I'm just sticking with the physical and not invoking other un-detectable entities and mystical powers. I'm not out to refute a sound metaphysical position (what would that be anyway?), I am pointing out that the hole you think exists in the physical account of mind is no hole at all. I don't need to prove what physical really-truly is, just show a consistent model, which is what we have done.

What a time-waster you are.

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The problem of the Self

Post by SpeedOfSound » Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:07 pm

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:You are mistaken. The brain has ready access to the information needed to identify locations. The brain moves the body and the body send back sense data. The brain probes the space around it by pointing the eyes around the space and responding to the patterns that result. Motions of eyes and body are patterns that can be learned and repeated.
What you are doing here is taking evidence from experience to explain what the real brain can do. That the [experienced] brain has correlates with the [experienced] eyes and body, is no more in doubt than Tom having correlations with Jerry's behaviour. But your model must transcend and ignore experience. You cannot use empirical evidence to make a metaphysical case for the reality of brains interacting with the reality of a world.

Somewhere along the line, you forgot that this is essentially a metaphysical discussion. One that aims to rebuke the notion of an immaterial observer by coming up with a logically coherent materialistic model that is not grounded upon empirical observations.

You cannot prove that the brain moves real eyes and a real body in relation to the real world, using experience. You need to cut that out, right now.

It seems to me as though you do not understand the philosophical restraints imposed upon you and your model. Your responses are rife with assertions and completely avoid addressing any problems that I present for your consideration. Here, for example, your response to my explanation was "You are wrong", followed by the use of empirical evidence to show why I am wrong. :fp:

And yes, you are right, this conversation does appear to be a waste of my time.
You must have forgot that you never established your basis for metaphysics. But the trouble here is far deeper.

It is actually a rare treat to run into someone that still clings to the murdered philosophies of centuries past but it's also disconcerting and strange. No one with any knowledge of science and philosophy talks like you anymore.

You are so stuck to your idea of god creating an illusion for minds that it isn't even possible to communicate with you on a basic philosophical argument. That's incredible! You are literally locked into the pre-teen neo-conceptual mind of a Tom and Jerry audience by your own philosophy. I guess that's why some people warn that philosophy can be harmful.

Let's quit this so you can tell us who you really are and get on with the god talk. Why delay?
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The problem of the Self

Post by jamest » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:03 pm

GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:You are mistaken. The brain has ready access to the information needed to identify locations. The brain moves the body and the body send back sense data. The brain probes the space around it by pointing the eyes around the space and responding to the patterns that result. Motions of eyes and body are patterns that can be learned and repeated.
What you are doing here is taking evidence from experience to explain what the real brain can do. That the [experienced] brain has correlates with the [experienced] eyes and body, is no more in doubt than Tom having correlations with Jerry's behaviour. But your model must transcend and ignore experience. You cannot use empirical evidence to make a metaphysical case for the reality of brains interacting with the reality of a world.

Somewhere along the line, you forgot that this is essentially a metaphysical discussion. One that aims to rebuke the notion of an immaterial observer by coming up with a logically coherent materialistic model that is not grounded upon empirical observations.

You cannot prove that the brain moves real eyes and a real body in relation to the real world, using experience. You need to cut that out, right now.

It seems to me as though you do not understand the philosophical restraints imposed upon you and your model. Your responses are rife with assertions and completely avoid addressing any problems that I present for your consideration. Here, for example, your response to my explanation was "You are wrong", followed by the use of empirical evidence to show why I am wrong. :fp:

And yes, you are right, this conversation does appear to be a waste of my time.
Ha! So that's what you are reduced to - claiming that a materialist model cannot refer to empirical data because it doesn't fit your model.
:nono: You lose :mod:
This has nothing to do with 'my model'! :doh:

The issue here is one of distinguishing between empiricism/science and materialism. The former is supposed to be metaphysically neutral, meaning that the empirical realm (science) is indicative of no particular metaphysic. Yet, you've clearly been guilty of incorporating empirical/scientific evidence into supporting your materialistic model. In other words, this kind of theoretical methodology is utterly naive and completely wrong. I'm afraid that you have to bite the bullet here, Graham, and accept that you've employed fallacious means of constructing your argument and responding to my counters. Anyone of a sincere nature, with a modicum of knowledge in epistemology and metaphysics, would say the exact same things to you.

Again, for the sake of clarity, let me reiterate to you that there are problems of logic, regarding the 'philosophy of mind', that any budding 'brain model' has to overcome. To just ignore these problems and rant on vaguely and assertively about the internal mechanisms of the brain - or to use empirical evidence as counters to these problems - is indicative of naivity and evasiveness.

So we used empirical evidence to show that you are wrong, did we? How unfair of us! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
No Graham, it's not "unfair" - it's irrational; fallacious; naive; evasive; bigoted; closed-minded; disingenuous; and utterly preposterous. What has become increasingly apparent throughout this discussion, is that even if you have a basic understanding of metaphysics, epistemology and the philosophy of mind - and I'm not sure that you do - that you totally disregard it all in formulating your materialistic brain model of existence.
P.S. You are the one making the metaphysical claim - that beyond the material world that we can all observe there must be something immaterial.
Actually Graham, YOU are the one making a metaphysical claim: that an immaterial observer is a fictional character (proceeded by your materialistic model, which is supposed to prove said claim - and which in itself is also a metaphysical claim about 'reality').
If you analyse my posts carefully within this thread, you'll notice that I've abstained from arguing FOR such a 'character'... and have concentrated, instead, in shredding your own claims.

I can spot a red herring a mile-away, Graham. Turn it in.
I'm just sticking with the physical and not invoking other un-detectable entities and mystical powers.
Bollocks. You're using empirical/scientific evidence as materialistic evidence. And anyone who doesn't know the difference really needs to take a crash course in the relevant issues.
What a time-waster you are.
Rest assured, my reasons for responding to your posts are not to give you a good time. :lol:

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The problem of the Self

Post by jamest » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:24 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:It is actually a rare treat to run into someone that still clings to the murdered philosophies of centuries past
Any problems I've raised here, are entirely contemporary.
No one with any knowledge of science and philosophy talks like you anymore.
Firstly, your knowledge of philosophy is not extensive. Secondly, anyone who thinks that a knowledge of science provides him with a knowledge of philosophy, only goes to prove the former point.
You are so stuck to your idea of god creating an illusion for minds that it isn't even possible to communicate with you on a basic philosophical argument.
I don't think that I've mentioned any aspects of my own philosophy in this thread. Certainly, I haven't focused upon any of it. You're also guilty then, of throwing red herrings.
Let's quit this so you can tell us who you really are and get on with the god talk. Why delay?
Who I am is irrelevant. And I simply cannot be bothered to discuss 'God' with people that don't even understand the metaphysical impotency of the empirical realm (science).

You may have noticed that my focus has been one of 'attack', in the last couple of months. The reason for that should be obvious: to expose the flawed thinking that would inevitably be employed in any critique of my own philosophy.
So, will I discuss my own philosophy? Perhaps. But only with people that acknowledge the problems inherent within their own mindset.

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by GrahamH » Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:33 am

James, you have come to a topic about how the brain accounts for the mind and you have denied the validity of neuroscience to say anything about the topic. While the other contributors here have addressed the issue you have ignored it in favour of discussing a fanciful metaphysical idea of your own. In doing so you have wasted a lot of people's time, including your own. Why talk of what information neurons have access to when your beef is that neurons are sequins on the merely decorative cerebral hat that you take the brain to be.

I think the quote in SoS' sig sums up your position:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: The problem of the Self

Post by GrahamH » Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:42 am

jamest wrote:You may have noticed that my focus has been one of 'attack', in the last couple of months. The reason for that should be obvious: to expose the flawed thinking that would inevitably be employed in any critique of my own philosophy.
So, will I discuss my own philosophy? Perhaps. But only with people that acknowledge the problems inherent within their own mindset.
If you base your 'Attack' on your own idealism you won't get far with people when they demonstrate the internal consistency of their philosophy. You need to show the inconsistencies, not point out the obvious, that they disagree with you. To do that you need to at least engage with the ideas put forward and argue from a position of understanding the propositions you are attacking.

I think that if you continue this sort of 'attack' you can only further undermine your own position, because your attack here has failed to land a blow.

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:24 am

GrahamH wrote:James, you have come to a topic about how the brain accounts for the mind and you have denied the validity of neuroscience to say anything about the topic.
Incorrect. I have denied the validity of observation being synonymous with materialistic proof. If you think that your eyes give you direct access to reality, then you really shouldn't be involved with philosophical discussion.
While the other contributors here have addressed the issue you have ignored it in favour of discussing a fanciful metaphysical idea of your own.
That's a lie. There's no other word for it. I have specifically focused upon the logical flaws within your own model, as clearly evident. Stop throwing red herrings and being disingenuous.

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by GrahamH » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:33 am

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:James, you have come to a topic about how the brain accounts for the mind and you have denied the validity of neuroscience to say anything about the topic.
Incorrect. I have denied the validity of observation being synonymous with materialistic proof. If you think that your eyes give you direct access to reality, then you really shouldn't be involved with philosophical discussion.
While the other contributors here have addressed the issue you have ignored it in favour of discussing a fanciful metaphysical idea of your own.
That's a lie. There's no other word for it. I have specifically focused upon the logical flaws within your own model, as clearly evident. Stop throwing red herrings and being disingenuous.
It is a fanciful metaphysical idea of yours that neuroscience can reveal nothing whatsoever about the mind.

Do you agree with that quote, or not?
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:41 am

GrahamH wrote:It is a fanciful metaphysical idea of yours that neuroscience can reveal nothing whatsoever about the mind.
The point at where I objected was when you used 'observation' to counter my problems. I have no problem with you using science to explain your model, but please don't use it to counter logical objections.
This IS a metaphysical discussion, so we have to adhere to metaphysical concerns. You have presented a double-barrelled metaphysical claim:

1) There is no immaterial observer.
2) Materialistic models can account for human behaviour.

Clearly Graham, you cannot use 'observation' to prove your argument, can you?

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by GrahamH » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:47 am

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:It is a fanciful metaphysical idea of yours that neuroscience can reveal nothing whatsoever about the mind.
The point at where I objected was when you used 'observation' to counter my problems. I have no problem with you using science to explain your model, but please don't use it to counter logical objections.
This IS a metaphysical discussion, so we have to adhere to metaphysical concerns. You have presented a double-barrelled metaphysical claim:

1) There is no immaterial observer.
2) Materialistic models can account for human behaviour.

Clearly Graham, you cannot use 'observation' to prove your argument, can you?
I don't deny observation, James. The topic is "the subjective observer". If we had reached the point where we began to discuss the nature of "the subjective observer" I would agree we would touch on metaphysical issues, but we haven't got there, because you deny that brains have any function in the world, despite abundant empirical evidence that they do. Of course I can use empirical observation to support my argument.

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:46 am

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:It is a fanciful metaphysical idea of yours that neuroscience can reveal nothing whatsoever about the mind.
The point at where I objected was when you used 'observation' to counter my problems. I have no problem with you using science to explain your model, but please don't use it to counter logical objections.
This IS a metaphysical discussion, so we have to adhere to metaphysical concerns. You have presented a double-barrelled metaphysical claim:

1) There is no immaterial observer.
2) Materialistic models can account for human behaviour.

Clearly Graham, you cannot use 'observation' to prove your argument, can you?
Hold on partner!

The first one is only metaphysics if you believe such a thing possible. If you don't, and I don't, then it's a claim like there are no blue polka dot sky bunnies. The person making such a claim knows full well that there could be such bunnies but is not going to say there are unless it is proven.

Now if someone proves to me that such bunnies are necessary to explain something I would soften my position to one of considering where to look for the bunnies.

So I would amend that to read:

1. There is no good evidence for an immaterial observer and there is no reason to believe that one is necessary to explain the mind.

Number two is a deeper problem with your thinking and deserves a separate post.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:53 am

Jamest wrote:...
You didn't answer Graham's question here :

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 76#p429076

Why didn't you?
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:59 am

jamest wrote: 2) Materialistic models can account for human behaviour.
Given the popular definition of materialism this word is a problem in this statement.

Behaviour? (I wish the fuck you brits would learn how to spell. Don't make us bring our troops over there to teach you how to have a right spelling democracy!! :pissed: )


2. The physical model of the brain can account for human behavior.

That is not a metaphysical claim unless this one is: "science can explain how your house started on fire"
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests